Opinion
Civil Action 2:09-CV-296.
April 14, 2010
ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding without the assistance of counsel, has filed a motion for the appointment of counsel. Doc. No. 31. It appears that plaintiff, at least to this point, has been able to adequately present his claims and pursue the litigation. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice to renewal at a later stage of the proceedings.
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for default judgment, complaining that defendants have failed to respond to his discovery requests. Doc. No. 36. In response, defendants assure plaintiff and the Court that they are in the process of making substantive response to plaintiff's discovery requests. Under these circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for default judgment be DENIED. If, after receiving defendants' responses to his discovery requests, plaintiff is dissatisfied with those responses, he must attempt to resolve any discovery dispute with defense counsel before filing another discovery-related motion. It is only if he is unable to resolve any remaining discovery dispute that plaintiff may file a motion to compel or to seek sanctions. See F.R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).